Well, can't you cut me a little slack? After all, I'm "arguing" with many who have no intention of repenting. The fact is, I probably should just kick the dust off my feet and move on. But, I am learning through these debates as it does serve as a sort of bible study for me, and I have learned much through the constant churn of scripture.

The stubbornness I encounter, esp from liberal Christians, on this forum can be quite frustrating, and no doubt it has jaded me somewhat. But I try to make it challenging as well as entertaining for myself as I can: challenging in that I pretty much open myself up to every angle of every argument against scripture the world has to offer. But, I must say, I’ve been very unimpressed by the “wisdom” of the world, as every argument from the world has been extremely and transparently hackish.

The best argument against scripture I’ve encountered is simply, “I don’t believe”…as any attempt by nonbelievers to expound upon the reasons for their unbelief forces them into mind-numbing and purposeful dumbness.

I mean, how many times has someone on this board quoted an “expert” and within a couple of posts the “expert” has been proven to be an overpaid clown?

But, if the bible truly is the Word of God, none of this should come as a surprise. And, don’t get me wrong. I would love to change my tone and speak constructively of the righteousness of God, but without an agreement on repentance, there is nothing to build upon.

So, I am left to entertain myself as best I can. For example, my preceding post to Ernest in this thread is full of quotes from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season 1 Episode 1, “Welcome to the Hellmouth”

Giles: (points to the crowd below) This is a perfect breeding ground for vampire activity. It's dark, it's crowded... Besides, I knew you were likely to show up, and I have to make you understand--

Buffy: That the Harvest is coming. I know, your friend told me.

Giles: What did you say?

Buffy: The Harvest. That mean something to you? 'Cause I'm drawing a blank.

Giles: I'm not sure. Uh... W-who told you this?

Buffy: This... guy. Dark, gorgeous in an annoying sort of way. I figured you two were buds.

Giles: No. The Harvest. Did he say anything else?

Buffy: Something about the Mouth of Hell. I *really* didn't like him!

Quote

Buffy: Now, we can do this the hard way, or... well, actually there's just the hard way.

Darla: That's fine with me!

Buffy: Are you sure? Now, this is not gonna be pretty. We're talking violence, strong language, adult content...

Thomas roars behind Buffy. She pulls the chair leg out from inside her shirt. He attacks from behind, but Buffy neatly jams the makeshift stake into his chest. He falls back and turns to ashes. Darla can't believe her eyes. Neither can anyone else.

Buffy: See what happens when you roughhouse?

And there is how I entertain myself. So, my lines may not be original, I'll grant you, but that doesn’t stop them from being true.

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

I've been spoken to constructively of the righteousness of God before. I assure you that without those conversations I wouldn't be remotely as tolerable a human being as I am now. I'm not sure whether or not Ernest could use that but I understand your frustration, although I still think you're going about it the wrong way.

I've been spoken to constructively of the righteousness of God before.

but yet you refuse to acknowledge what the bible is saying point blank about homosexuality. There is no righteousness of God without first turning to God and accepting his word.

It's you who refuses to acknowledge that people's interpretations of the Bible other than your own may perhaps be motivated by things other than stupidity or malice, which you seem to believe are the only bases on which a Christian can disagree with the interpretive and theological praxis of the mighty You-sama. This starts with your idolatrous obsession with the sola scriptura concept (coupled with a profoundly ahistorical and, worse, supercilious understanding of even that) and just goes on and on from there. You do realize that you're about as heretical from my perspective as I am from yours, for reasons unrelated to any sexual or romantic relationships that Christians who are not either of us may or may not have?

I've been spoken to constructively of the righteousness of God before.

but yet you refuse to acknowledge what the bible is saying point blank about homosexuality. There is no righteousness of God without first turning to God and accepting his word.

It's you who refuses to acknowledge that people's interpretations of the Bible other than your own may perhaps be motivated by things other than stupidity or malice, which you seem to believe are the only bases on which a Christian can disagree with the interpretive and theological praxis of the mighty You-sama. This starts with your idolatrous obsession with the sola scriptura concept (coupled with a profoundly ahistorical and, worse, supercilious understanding of even that) and just goes on and on from there. You do realize that you're about as heretical from my perspective as I am from yours, for reasons unrelated to any sexual or romantic relationships that Christians who are not either of us may or may not have?

Nathan, if my view of scripture is wrong, than how is it my "interpretation" of sexual behavior can completely MESH into what is allow and disallowed by scripture?

The simple truth is you’ve given no interpretation, you’ve simply ignored, even though I’ve given you every opportunity. And you do so because there is no way to make homosexuality mesh with the bible.

From Genesis onward, not only does the bible repeatedly condemn same-sex sex …the only sex the bible allows (from Genesis onward) is the sex that occurs within the context of a marriage, and the bible defines marriage (from Genesis onward) as a heterosexual union.

It is named on the DO NOT list, and, by definition, it doesn’t fit the DO list, for the DO list is limited to a heterosexual union.

It’s cut and dry, even from the very beginning. But if you would refute those premises, please start at the beginning of Genesis and walk me through the biblical history of allowed sexual activity in the bible…but do so in another thread.

---

Also if you want to discuss your views against sola scriptura, you’re going to have to explain why scripture would play second fiddle to anything else. And please come prepared with biblical examples to prove your points, walking us through the biblical historical record of who scriptrue was to be treated and what, if anything, was allowed to take precedence over it…but do it in another thread.

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

1. Love - Didn't like that doodle much. The commandment is "love thy neighbor" not "love thy neighbor so they will like you and be nice to you" As Matthew 5:44,46 reports Jesus as saying, "'But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. [...] If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?" Also, I would think you'd want your children to think of Christ as a friend and buddy, rather than condemn such thoughts as being arrogant as that doodle does.

2. Charity - A pretty good doodle. I have a slight concern that taken alone this doodle could promote the concept of 'works alone' because of the way that it talks of charity as a "ticket to Heaven" but I know that's not what you believe in, and the subject of the interaction of faith and works is probably a bit too heavy for even a five-course doodle.

I suppose nowadays most kids have I-pads to put their dinner plates on. I eat in restaurants, but I consider Wikipedia my 'Dinner Doodle'. I'm always looking at the silliest things on there - even near the end we keep filling up the old noggin with Stuff.

jmfcst, don't feel bad about the I-pad thing, I'm sure you more than make up for it in other ways.

[There was something more or less substantive here but it was bad for my blood pressure to write and not especially charitable so I'd like to retract it in favor of a generic 'No you'.]

Quote

against sola scriptura

Quote

please come prepared with biblical examples to prove your points

What on Earth do you think you're demonstrating with this post?

Unless I typoed my post so badly that it is beyond comprehension, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you asking that I create a thread in support of the doctrine that scripture is complete and the standard of truth? if so, I can do that, but it will have to wait until in the morning.

just fyi, here is how I plan to go about it...

Concerning the OT church:1) I will prove that scripture states that when the first scripture (written word of God's instructions) was given to Moses, that God also made known to the people the entire law which God gave to Moses, so that BOTH Moses and commoners that accompanied Moses had the entire set of God's requirements. And therefore prove there wasn't hidden knowledge held by the leadership that was only kept by the leadership.2) I will prove from scripture that the teachers of the Law (the first scriptures) were limited in the scope of dogmatic teaching to teach only what was in accordance to the Law, the same Law the people had in its fullness. Therefore proving God intended the written Law was the standard of truth for the OT church.3) I will prove the successors of Moses would become corrupt in their teaching within a few generations, and that ultimately, the successors of Moses would become so blind that they would end up rejecting the Messiah...thus proving the leadership of the OT church was NOT infallible in its teachings.

Concerning the NT church:1) I will prove from scripture that the NT church could teach their entire Christian doctrine using only an OT for a bible, and Jesus' and the Apostles teaching authority was limited to what was already written in the OT.2) I will prove from scripture that the leadership of the NT church taught the rest of the church the complete Gospel as it was handed down to them by Christ, so that both the Apostles and the common Christian had the full version of Christ's teachings. And therefore prove there wasn't hidden knowledge held by the leadership that was only kept by the leadership.3) I will prove that the unwritten history of the post-apostolic church, the rest of church history since the NT was penned, is already given to us in the bible because it is mirrored in the history of the OT church which the bible does record.4) I will prove from scripture that the post-apostolic church lacks the authority to alter and/or add anything to the message taught by the original Apostles.5) Lastly, I will prove the bible, as we have it today, is the complete Gospel.

Fair enough?

« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 12:15:21 am by consigliere jmfcst »

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

That wasn't what I was asking at all, but you were demanding Scriptural evidence against the idea of sola scriptura, which you will surely understand defeats the entire purpose of not adhering to sola scriptura. If you want to mount a Scriptural case for sola scriptura I'll be sure to read it with interest, but just as that case ends up just being a circular argument, any argument against sola scriptura that I could make would end up bringing things other than the Bible into consider by nature of what the position of opposing sola scriptura entails. Is that fair?

Nathan, you're making my head spin, for I don't know why you brought up sola scriptura in the first place...so let's retract and do a sanity check to see if we agree:

If, hypothetically, BOTH the OT and NT condemn the wearing of red shoes, yet allow and even encourage the wearing of blue shoes...is there any logical argument a Christian can make for the wearing of red shoes, regardless if he adheres to sola scriptura or not?

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

Nathan, you're making my head spin, for I don't know why you brought up sola scriptura in the first place...so let's retract and do a sanity check to see if we agree:

If, hypothetically, BOTH the OT and NT condemn the wearing of red shoes, yet allow and even encourage the wearing of blue shoes...is there any logical argument a Christian can make for the wearing of red shoes, regardless if he adheres to sola scriptura or not?

Is the condemnation sufficiently clear that every Church Father up until St John Chrysostom, including St Augustine and St Clement, did not interpret the NT passages in question as referring to something different but similar?

Nathan, you're making my head spin, for I don't know why you brought up sola scriptura in the first place...so let's retract and do a sanity check to see if we agree:

If, hypothetically, BOTH the OT and NT condemn the wearing of red shoes, yet allow and even encourage the wearing of blue shoes...is there any logical argument a Christian can make for the wearing of red shoes, regardless if he adheres to sola scriptura or not?

Is the condemnation sufficiently clear that every Church Father up until St John Chrysostom, including St Augustine and St Clement, did not interpret the NT passages in question as referring to something different but similar?

the hypothetical is purely a sanity check, it does NOT include matters of differences of interpretation of even language translation…consider the hypothetical to point blank…

so, again I ask…

If, hypothetically, BOTH the OT and NT condemn the wearing of red shoes, yet allow and even encourage the wearing of blue shoes...is there any logical argument a Christian can make for the wearing of red shoes, regardless if he adheres to sola scriptura or not?

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

Nathan, you're making my head spin, for I don't know why you brought up sola scriptura in the first place...so let's retract and do a sanity check to see if we agree:

If, hypothetically, BOTH the OT and NT condemn the wearing of red shoes, yet allow and even encourage the wearing of blue shoes...is there any logical argument a Christian can make for the wearing of red shoes, regardless if he adheres to sola scriptura or not?

Is the condemnation sufficiently clear that every Church Father up until St John Chrysostom, including St Augustine and St Clement, did not interpret the NT passages in question as referring to something different but similar?

the hypothetical is purely a sanity check, it does NOT include matters of differences of interpretation of even language translation…consider the hypothetical to point blank…

so, again I ask…

If, hypothetically, BOTH the OT and NT condemn the wearing of red shoes, yet allow and even encourage the wearing of blue shoes...is there any logical argument a Christian can make for the wearing of red shoes, regardless if he adheres to sola scriptura or not?

Purely in terms of the hypothetical, purely from the information presented, no, there's no argument there.

If, hypothetically, BOTH the OT and NT condemn the wearing of red shoes, yet allow and even encourage the wearing of blue shoes...is there any logical argument a Christian can make for the wearing of red shoes, regardless if he adheres to sola scriptura or not?

Purely in terms of the hypothetical, purely from the information presented, no, there's no argument there.

so, following sola scriptura or not, has absolutely nothing to do with it, right - it's merely a matter of the information presented in scripture?

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

If, hypothetically, BOTH the OT and NT condemn the wearing of red shoes, yet allow and even encourage the wearing of blue shoes...is there any logical argument a Christian can make for the wearing of red shoes, regardless if he adheres to sola scriptura or not?

Purely in terms of the hypothetical, purely from the information presented, no, there's no argument there.

so, following sola scriptura or not, has absolutely nothing to do with it, right - it's merely a matter of the information presented in scripture?

Within the information that you presented, that particular doctrinal question indeed doesn't seem relevant, but there are other hypotheticals that I can think of in which it would become relevant. Obviously we have a difference on which set of hypotheticals is closer to the situation at hand.

I'm actually busy for the rest of this evening and don't anticipate becoming un-busy again until I'm done with my finals, so do you mind if we drop this for the time being, now that we've had this sanity check?

I’ll wait for your return to answer the next question which will bring us back on topic, because I plan to walk with you through the scripture to determine which point you and I disagree on the information presented. And I’ll start with the following question:

Question 1:

When did Adam become a sexual being (i.e. when did he develop a sex drive)? Was it when he was initially created? Was it when Eve was formed from the body of Adam, in that the forming of Eve somehow remade Adam into a sexual being with a sex drive? Or did Adam develop a sex drive due to the fall of man? Or was it at some other point (please specify)?

Please answer the question the best you can, using ONLY the information given in scripture, and give a reference to passages which helped form your answer.

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

While I wait to see if you have any response to my response on the four additional doodles, I may may well give you my answer to question 1.

The answer depends on how you deal with the two different creation narratives included in Genesis.

Genesis 1:27 has mankind being created male and female by Elohim. Hence in the first creation account, mankind was sexual from the moment of their creation.

Genesis 2:7 has a singular man being created by YHWH Elohim. Only later in Genesis 2:22 is woman formed. It is not sensible that God would give man a sex drive he could not use, so in the second narrative, man would not have been a sexual being any earlier than the creation of woman. From Genesis 3:16, since childbirth is made painful for the woman, rather than childbirth is made, and it will be painful, a reasonable inference can be made that man and woman had been engaging in sex, as had various animals who had had not only been having sex, but had sufficient time in the garden to give birth, since God does not need to explain the concept of childbirth to her. Therefore, man was a sexual being before the fall. Since no other significant event is recounted between the creation of woman and the fall of mankind, once can conclude that in the second creation account man becomes a sexual being with the creation of woman.

The difference in the treatment of human sexuality in the two creation narratives is but one of the reasons why I do not consider the early portions of Genesis to be literal truth, but parables intended to illustrate certain concepts in a manner comprehensible to the ancient Israelis.

Of course, if one insists on trying to combine the two accounts into one indivisible whole, then since the lack of a sex drive prior to the creation of woman in the second narrative is an inference, one would have to conclude on the basis of Genesis 1:27 that man was always a sexual being who had to forgo those urges until woman showed up.

While I wait to see if you have any response to my response on the four additional doodles, I may may well give you my answer to question 1.

The answer depends on how you deal with the two different creation narratives included in Genesis.

Genesis 1:27 has mankind being created male and female by Elohim. Hence in the first creation account, mankind was sexual from the moment of their creation.

Genesis 2:7 has a singular man being created by YHWH Elohim. Only later in Genesis 2:22 is woman formed. It is not sensible that God would give man a sex drive he could not use, so in the second narrative, man would not have been a sexual being any earlier than the creation of woman. From Genesis 3:16, since childbirth is made painful for the woman, rather than childbirth is made, and it will be painful, a reasonable inference can be made that man and woman had been engaging in sex, as had various animals who had had not only been having sex, but had sufficient time in the garden to give birth, since God does not need to explain the concept of childbirth to her. Therefore, man was a sexual being before the fall. Since no other significant event is recounted between the creation of woman and the fall of mankind, once can conclude that in the second creation account man becomes a sexual being with the creation of woman.

The difference in the treatment of human sexuality in the two creation narratives is but one of the reasons why I do not consider the early portions of Genesis to be literal truth, but parables intended to illustrate certain concepts in a manner comprehensible to the ancient Israelis.

Of course, if one insists on trying to combine the two accounts into one indivisible whole, then since the lack of a sex drive prior to the creation of woman in the second narrative is an inference, one would have to conclude on the basis of Genesis 1:27 that man was always a sexual being who had to forgo those urges until woman showed up.

Yo, hate to repeatedly shake you up, but Jesus interpreted Gen ch 1 and Gen ch 2 as a single account of the beginning – NOT two separate beginnings – and comingled passages from both into a single story:

Mat 19:4 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

So, once again, your attack on the bible places you in opposition to the way Jesus interpreted the bible.

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

So, once again, your attack on the bible places you in opposition to the way Jesus interpreted the bible.

Wat I wrote was not an attack on the bible, but I can see how you could view it as an attack on your interpretation of it. However, I find your rebuttal of my view is without merit.

First and foremost, both Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 are consistent with viewing the two parts as one whole or viewing them as separate parables as I have advocated. The essential point Jesus raised in his answer to the Pharisees was that marriage was intended to last so long as the man and woman were flesh.

Second, no matter whether mankind was male and female from the very beginning, or only after woman was created from man, which is still early enough to be considered to have been done "at the beginning", it remains the case that God was responsible for the division and thus marriage serves as a method of uniting the two. The question of exactly when man became a sexual being does not impact Jesus' response on the question of divorce.

Third, when Jesus referred to God having "made them male and female" there is no way of concluding whether he was referencing Genesis 1:27 or Genesis 5:2, so one cannot claim for certain that the quote came from the former.But enough of this for the moment. Let us get back to what this thread was created for: Dinner Doodles!

Taking a look at this one again, I have to say I find it creepier than I did the first time I looked at it.Besides encouraging the view of Jesus as remote and impersonal by calling people arrogant if they consider Jesus to be a buddy, the doodle doesn't see anything at all wrong with a fifth grader falling in love with his teacher! Thankfully the teacher in the doodle story didn't offer the kid some private tutoring in biology.

Third, when Jesus referred to God having "made them male and female" there is no way of concluding whether he was referencing Genesis 1:27 or Genesis 5:2, so one cannot claim for certain that the quote came from the former.

to claim Jesus was quoting from Gen 5:2 and not Gen 1:27, is a complete joke, for both Gen 5:2 and Gen 1:27 say the same thing. In fact, Gen ch 5 is just the list of Adam's relatives and only repeats Gen 1:27 as a quick preface:

Gen 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. "

Gen 5:1 "This is the written account of Adam’s line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man”. 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died. 6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died."

To claim that Jesus could quote a summary statement Gen 5:2 in order to sidestep a more detailed account in Gen 1:27 because he somehow believed Gen ch 1 was a made up story is to be purposely ignorant of the fact that Jesus explicitly pointed to “at the beginning of Creation”, and since Gen ch 5 is NOT the beginning of Creation, but rather give a brief preface to give context to the genealogy of Adam’s decedents, he can only be referring to Gen ch 1:

Mark 10:5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’(Gen 1:27) 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,8 and the two will become one flesh.’(Gen 2:24) So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

And, notice, before Jesus quotes Genesis, he never goes through a long list of reasons why he doesn’t believe it, as you do. Rather he, and the rest of the NT, treated Genesis as historical fact as they did the rest of the OT. They made absolutely no distinction between Genesis and the rest of the OT, except in the fact that they place GREATER emphasis on Genesis than they did the rest of the OT.

Jesus and the Apostles honored and respected scripture, and considered it the written word of God penned by men as the spirit guided them. You don’t.

Taking a look at this one again, I have to say I find it creepier than I did the first time I looked at it....Besides encouraging the view of Jesus as remote and impersonal by calling people arrogant if they consider Jesus to be a buddy,

That is a complete misrepresentation of what it says – rather it says that WE would be arrogant if WE had initiated that definition by defining God as our friend, for it is not our place to define God. Be we didn’t have to initiate that definition, for God was the one who defined our relationship with him in terms of “friend”.

the doodle doesn't see anything at all wrong with a fifth grader falling in love with his teacher! Thankfully the teacher in the doodle story didn't offer the kid some private tutoring in biology.

So, now it is somehow evil and creepy that 5th grade boys fall in love with their attractive female teachers?!

In the arrogance of your desperate search to find fault with those that actually believe the bible, you are completely ignorant. This story about a 5th grader falling in love with his teacher is a story from my pastor’s life. He was a poor student in school up until 5th grade when he fell in love with his beautiful 5th grade teacher, Miss Carstarphen.

On the first day of 5th grade, he took a seat in the back of the class before the teacher walked in. He was in his own world when he heard a voice announce, “[Hello, class. My name is Ms. Carstarphen and I’m going to your teacher for this year.]” He looked up and saw the black haired angel (which is why he picked a brunette for the doodle pic) and it was love at first sight. She told the class that after the first bathroom break, she was going to allow the students pick the seat in which they wanted to sit for the whole year, and if they behaved, they would not be moved.

So, at the first bathroom break, he “helped” his fellow students exit the class as quickly as possible, “[After you…please, go ahead, I’m sure you need to go more than I do…yeah, my summer was cool, now get out!]” And after they were gone, he stayed behind and made a beeline and staked a claim to the desk right in front of the teacher’s desk, where for the rest of the school year he enjoyed a front row view and could place his foot up against the bottom of her desk of that he could fell her breath.

His unspoken love for her completely changed his attitude and caused him to try his best to please her and be a good student in order to give her a good reputation as a teacher. He made straight A’s that year and became her best student. Before he didn’t care how he looked, but that year he was laying out his clothes each night before school, making sure everything matched and was clean and pressed.

He was sure she loved him with the same unspoken love, and he just knew they were going to get married some day. And on Parent-Teacher Day, he was glad his teacher didn’t openly confess her love for him to his mom. At the end of the year, she came to school with a ring on her finger and announced to her class that she was engaged and would be getting married and moving to a different town.

He was crushed. But he got over it, and, more importantly, learned a lesson about the power of love and how it changes one’s character and behavior. And he uses that story to teach about what it means to love God and how our love for God completely changes our character so that we want to please him in everything we do.

He also uses this story of his “first love” to explain the difference between your attitude when you first fall in love and the attitude you have when you take a relationship for granted, and ties it in with the following verse:

Rev 2: 2 “I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. 4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5 Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first.

But, of course, you don’t know the background to the story and simply assume the worst because the worst is in your heart and overflows out of it:

Luke 6:45 “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

Sigh. I had doubts about including my third point, as it wasn't particularly important compared to the first two (which is why I gave it last), but I thought I'd include it anyway for the sake of completeness. Alas, it gave you an opportunity to evade my first two points.

You still haven't pointed out how it makes any difference in what Jesus or the twelve apostles said or meant if the beginning of Genesis is taken as literal history or as parables.

As for the story about the fifth grader, even with the added background, it is still creepy. It also demonstrates a profound misunderstanding about love on the part of your pastor, both back when he was a fifth grader, which is understandable given his youth then, but since you say he still holds it up as an example of love, it sounds as if he is missing the point even now. What he recounts as what he felt for Miss Carstarphen was not love, but desire, which is not the same. Desire is but one aspect of love, but it is also an aspect of a number of sins such as lust, avarice, and pride. Fortunately, nothing particularly bad seems to have happened as a result of that boy's great misadventure in desire.

Ernest, I'm not sure the precocious crush used by the Dinner Doodle as an example of love is necessary the best level to criticize it on; the situation as described isn't one that I find 'creepy', although I'm not entirely certain why the Dinner Doodle chose to use it as its example.